The Absorber in Chief

According to a new book by reporter Bob Woodward called "Obama's Wars," when warned by advisers of another terror threat on U.S. soil, our president said that our country could "absorb" the attack.

This is what he said in an interview with the author: "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever… we absorbed it and we are stronger."

Look, I don't want to make a huge deal out of this. Instead, I will pretend to make a huge deal out of this.

Frankly, I have concerns about a president who sees our country as a sheet of Bounty that could sop up mass casualties like a spilled sloppy joe. That attack one talks about absorbing could result in thousands of dead folks.

Which is why it's just creepy using the word "absorb." Twice.

Now, I'm thinking Obama meant it as a compliment — that we're a strong country that can weather anything — and we all agree. But "absorb?" You can't say that crap. It's cold, it's clinical, it makes Mr. Spock sound like Stuart Smiley.

It reminds me of Michael Dukakis way back in the presidential debates of 1988 when Bernard Shaw of CNN asked him if his wife were raped and murdered, would he favor the death penalty for the killer? Dukakis said no in a manner only a passionless robot could master. Which is why no one remembers anything else from that debate. It destroyed him.

For me, the word "absorb" feels like that. But I guess in the air-conditioned intellect that is Obama, words like "absorb" seem perfectly reasonable.

So, as a response, I am boycotting Bounty and I suggest you do the same.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic dinophobe. Look it up.